Well gang... I've been playing with theories and ideas for long enough now its time to put them into a design and see if it actually works. We all know the 24V's seem to take a good tumble in MPG's as the winter sets in well ISX proved that with the 12V engines with static timing that MPG's don't change. Well if you look at it the only thing that could be tossing this out the window is the IAT sensor on the 24V is changing the VP44 performance. Most know that colder air produces better HP/TQ because colder air is denser and requires more fuel to keep balanced. Well if you reverse this and warm the air (in theory) the VP44 should retune and burn according to the manifold temp. So what I've done tonight is fished through my resistor pile and found 3 I'm going to use for test candidates. Orange - White - Red - Gold = 3.9K Ohm = 116*F IATRed - Violet - Red - Gold = 2.7K ohm = 132*F IATRed - Black - Red - Gold = 2.0K ohm = 148*F IAT So now tomorrow I'm going to pull 3 test runs on the same piece of highway... Seeing if the highier the IAT temp increases the MPG or not... I'll can give you something to think about... Grid heaters are NOT controlled directly by the IAT... With the 2.7K Ohm resistor in place before even starting the grid heater still where hitting as normal. So there is more to the grid heater that the IAT temps... ... On the cutting edge again...

Looks like I got my high idle box a few months to early. Can we send in for an upgrade?

Well it's not quite ready yet, still got to figure out some of the problems with it. This was a prototype one built for a particular customer that requested it. Him and I are kind of working together to test it out and iron the bugs out. Then I might have to figure something out for an upgrade.

Hey Prowelder... I did some thinking on the design and the bugs and think I got it fixed... At least with this design there is no way to have high idle and MPG fooler running together... I knew there was a way to logically seperate the to system I just need a good night sleep and a strong cup of coffee...

Hey Prowelder... I did some thinking on the design and the bugs and think I got it fixed... [ATTACH=CONFIG]2704[/ATTACH] At least with this design there is no way to have high idle and MPG fooler running together... I knew there was a way to logically seperate the to system I just need a good night sleep and a strong cup of coffee...

Awesome Mike!! I'll have to try it out when I get the time, really busy today and tomorrow with school/work. Then I'll let you know!

Greetings all, I've been ghosting for quite a while, and following a lot of Mopar Man's advice (2cycle oil, Frantz bypass oil filter, BHAF, Home made cold weather front - diamond plate aluminum, Air Dog 100 instalation, etc.) I had to join up, because this conversation is just too interesting to stay out. Here's what I'm thinking I'll do. I'd like to wire in a 2 pole (on/off) switch and a resistor (2K ohm?). With the switch in the off position there would be infinate resistance (for starting the truck to allow the intake heater grids to cycle), and in the on position there would be 2K ohms resistance telling the engine the IAT is nice and toasty. Does this sound like it would work? Or, do I need something a bit more complicated - 3 position switch (no resistance, infinate resistance, and 2K ohms)? Thanks.

Basically build a ECT fooler but using IAT plugs and then replace the resistor with the 2K ohm. Really simple.

Pulled about 10k yesterday, still got about 17 mpg with fooler and about 40 mph headwind/crosswind. I haven't filled up yet, but I will post the results.

I don't have the cold weather High Idle thing downloaded into my ECM (anyone want to lend me their Smarty for the download?). Will the ECT fooler setup work with out the download? Also, is a forum member making these and selling them already (Prowelder)? I'd be interested in buying one. If not, what are the specifics on making one of these for myself (Mopar or Cummins part numbers for the plugs, what kind of switch, resistor size, wiring diagram etc.) It's probably here somewhere, but a link posted in this thread would help guys know how to make them. I'm looking forward to the increased 2 or 3 MPG. $4.07 per gallon is rediculious.

I don't have the cold weather High Idle thing downloaded into my ECM (anyone want to lend me their Smarty for the download?).

Smarty or a trip to the dealer would do it...

Will the ECT fooler setup work with out the download?

As for a design template for the MPG fooler Yes... But remember you need the IAT plugs and the 2K resistor in place of the other parts shown.

Also, is a forum member making these and selling them already (Prowelder)?

Yes. Prowelder is the site's manufacture of the high idle kits... Currently in debug phase for the MPG/High ilde kits..

I'd be interested in buying one. If not, what are the specifics on making one of these for myself (Mopar or Cummins part numbers for the plugs, what kind of switch, resistor size, wiring diagram etc.)

Well the high idle designs are here... http://mopar.mopar1973man.com/cummins/2ndgen24v/high-idle/high-idle.htm The MPG fooler design are here in the thread...

It's probably here somewhere, but a link posted in this thread would help guys know how to make them. I'm looking forward to the increased 2 or 3 MPG. $4.07 per gallon is rediculious.

I'm already feeling the pinch here at $4.319 and going up yet...

Thanks. The high idle fooler link really has all of the info I need to build one of these. I'd still be interested in buying one. Am I right to think this works best when used at the same time as using my Edge Comp box (on 4)?

Thanks. The high idle fooler link really has all of the info I need to build one of these. I'd still be interested in buying one. Am I right to think this works best when used at the same time as using my Edge Comp box (on 4)?

Actually better at Edge Comp on 5x5...

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDvurlwOYsU

ProWelder, can you PM me a cost for one of these devices including shipping to zip 59412? Mike,"Edge Comp on 5x5" and this IAT fooler (with the high idle fooler) sounds like a plan to me. I'm supprised the aftermarket tuner companies (Edge, Bully Dog, Superchips etc.) never got into this kind of stuff. They obviously aren't getting the most performance/efficiency out of their products if they aren't addressing IAT and it's effects on the timing curve.

We as for the performance / economy its a give and take relationship...

Economy (Hi MPG) <---------------------> Performance (Hi HP/TQ)

As for the IAT temp that is a smog/emissions control so no one in the corporate field will even go here because all in all I'm sure it will turn noses up in CARB/EPA testing areas. But I look at it this way if I'm saving fuel I can't be producing that much more emissions.

Kind of like the out of the box thinking of 2 cycle oil in diesel fuel... Still to this day corporate American will not acknowledge the 2 cycle oil but in the private sector like yourselves everyone is at least trying it and more like the results.

I disagree on the point that fuel economy comes at the expense of TQ and HP - especially when considering turbo charged diesels. My opinion is that our engines give us MPG based on how much fuel is burned to do exactly so much work (BSFC - break specific fuel consumption?). If we increase the power output by advancing the timing (or better atomization of fuel via injector upgrades, or more complete combustion process via 2cycle oil or propane or water/methanol injection) and thus increrase efficiency we have improved in both worlds MPG and TQ/HP, and possibly even lowered certain emmisions. I agree that burning less fuel is better for the earth. Don't get me started on the MPG loss caused by DPF's and the additional CO2 released by the aditional fuel consumption. Not to sidetrack the conversation, I think I read an article in Diesel World Magazine about a midwestern state university (Nebraska?) opperating expiramental turbo diesel engine that ran on biodiesel and during certain peramiters (full load/full boost) it also injected E85 ethanol dirrectly into the intake ports in a similar manner to modern fuel injected cars. The result was a big increase in power and almost no emmissions because the combustion cycle was so complete. Interesting.

I disagree on the point that fuel economy comes at the expense of TQ and HP - especially when considering turbo charged diesels. My opinion is that our engines give us MPG based on how much fuel is burned to do exactly so much work (BSFC - break specific fuel consumption?). If we increase the power output by advancing the timing (or better atomization of fuel via injector upgrades, or more complete combustion process via 2cycle oil or propane or water/methanol injection) and thus increrase efficiency we have improved in both worlds MPG and TQ/HP, and possibly even lowered certain emmisions. I agree that burning less fuel is better for the earth. Don't get me started on the MPG loss caused by DPF's and the additional CO2 released by the aditional fuel consumption. Not to sidetrack the conversation, I think I read an article in Diesel World Magazine about a midwestern state university (Nebraska?) opperating expiramental turbo diesel engine that ran on biodiesel and during certain peramiters (full load/full boost) it also injected E85 ethanol dirrectly into the intake ports in a similar manner to modern fuel injected cars. The result was a big increase in power and almost no emmissions because the combustion cycle was so complete. Interesting.

Will you please post the link to the article?

I think I explain that poorly... I didn't mean you sacrificed performance or HP/TQ but we can't drive our truck at MAX HP/TQ and expect to have high MPG's. Like in my study of it Economy comes with engine load of less than 15%. So if I dyno'ed at 381/831 back in 2007 that mean I'm only using 15% of 381 Max HP/831 Max TQ which happens to be roughly 57 HP/124 TQ. I've still got all the muscle I need under the hood but only use a very small fraction of the power now very efficently...

I have a different take on this. High MPG means not stepping on the pedal, true, but what about in comparison to weight.. A train can move a ton of freight 423 miles on one gallon of fuel... I can move 3.3 tons 27 miles on one gallon. If I did their crazy logic and multiplied that by 3.3 so that it will get me down to 1 ton, I will be doing 89.1 miles per ton. Alright now lets compare apples to apples. I pull the trailer at 70mph, it loves it there, I get 21mpg without the trailer at 70, which means 21 x 3.3 = 69.3 miles per gallon per ton. With the trailer at 70mph, I get 16.5 mpg, but I am probably right at 10,000lbs combined weight, or 5 tons. 16.5 x 5 = 82.5 miles per gallon per ton. My efficiency is higher pulling a trailer at 70 than going 70 without the trailer. Now lets really give it a kick. I think Caj pulls more like, well we will say 20k combined and I think he gets around an average of 13 or so. That is 130 mpg/pt. Obviously the killer is aerodynamics. An enclosed trailer with nothing in it will not do too much better than one with 1 ton in it. Maybe some of you guys have noticed when you put a bunch of weight in the bed of the truck but don't change aerodynamics, your mileage hardly changes. Look at a train, it breaks the wind once and the 1000 cars behind it draft each other. Economy might come at less than 15% engine load, but mpg is just an illusion of economy. Miles per gallon/per ton tells the whole story. My moms car gets 30mpg, but oh wait, I weigh twice as much and get 27... So the way you stated would mean mines less efficient, but it is obvious that it is her car that is less efficient. It's like saying a semi truck is horrible because it gets 6mpg, but mpg/per ton at 80k lbs comes out to 240.. Just for comparison, moms camry comes in around 45 mpg/pt.

Very interesting way to look at it... 7,400# = 3.7 Tons (Just weighed my truck today)21 MPG Which is 77.7 miles per gallon per ton for my truck. As for my Mom's 96 Dodge... 5,500# = 2.75 Tons (Using old weight)14 MPG (On a good day) Which is 38.5 miles per gallon per ton for a 1996 Dodge Ram 1500 Ext Cab Short Box 5.9L Gas engine with automatic trans (3.55:1 gears). Hmmm... Going out long... Honda Rancher ATV (420cc engine fuel injected) 835# = .4175 Tons (With me in the saddle - rough weight)30 MPG 12.5 miles per gallon per ton.... Weird way to look at it but it does make sense...

Sasqch, it took me a while to find, but here's a link to the article. http://dieselpower.automotive.com/146258/1011dp-diesels-dual-fuel-future/index.html

Well, I just filled up and I used 17.395 gallons of fuel and went 237 miles. So, I got 13.625 MPG for those miles, and half of them were towing 10k.

I filled up yesterday afternoon fuel tank on truck 35 gals fuel tank in bed 65 gals, cost me $267.00 for 70.28 gals at $3.799/gal. I left Wynne, AR drove to Rome, GA pulling my 45 ft tandem dual gooseneck. I tried my hardest to keep right close to the posted speed limit!!! Left good ole home town at 7p.m pulled into Rome at 3 am thats stopping in Memphis Tn eating dinner, leaving there being a good samaritan and pulling an 06 Dodge 4 dr cab an chassis pulling a tri axle car hauler loaded with 3 cars out of the hwy bc he lost the ujoint and flange at the differential, (killed about 45 mins) stopping to stretch legs and restroom breaks. Loaded a 98 Ford E 350 ambulance that lost belt tensioner, but the EMT didn't notice spike on temp gauge so he kept going and blowed the engine, and back on the road at 3:30 am leaving Rome, by this time I'm starting feel my wheaties of being up since 3:30 yesterday morning, couldn't handle doing the speed limit any more and was running about 5-10 over! The posted speeds on the 2 lanes was 55 so I was doing about 65, in AL the speed limit was 65 so I was kicking about 70-75 in MS, an TN it was 70 so I kicked it about 75-80, in good ole AR sped limit is 70 an I was bumping about 80-85:nono::nono: Overall I ran 894.4 miles round trip of that 450 was loaded with the dead ambulance! So for the round trip of 894.4 miles I burned 82.851 gallons of fuel that hand calculated to 10.795 mpg overall. I did the whole round trip loading and unloading in 16.5 hrs!!!:pant:

Do you think that this setup would help me fuel economy?